DECISION This appeal is directed against a decision given by the First Sind Labour Court on 22-5-1979 dismissing the application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Filed by the appellant for his reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Managar, on probation, in the Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan in the pay scale of Rs. 460-1,020 vide order dated 17-7-1976. The probation period was originally for six months but due to unsatisfactory work of the appellant, it was extended upto 31-3-1977 by order dated 14-1-1977. However, on 16-2- 1977, his services were terminated because of unsatis--factory work.
2. The appellant after serving a grievance notice, filed an applica--tion tinder section 25-A, of the I.
R. O. Before the First Labour Court. The learned Labour Court held that the appellant was not a `workman' for the purposes of I.R.O. As he was appointed in a supervisory capacity and that moreover the termination of his services were during the period of his probation and in accordance with his letter of appointment. On the basis of these findings he dismissed the application of the appellant who has now come up in appeal.
3. In my view the above findings o .f the learned Labour Court are unassailable. It is an admitted fact that at the time of termination of his service the appellant was drawing a salary of Rs. 844 p. m. The appellant was originally appointed as Assistant Manager and later he worked as Manager- designated at Multan. As Manager-designate he took over charge of as many as 1.6 factories of the above respondent. The nature of the duties of the appellant, both as- Assistant Manager and Manager-designate, were of supervisory character. He-was, thus, clearly appointed in a supervisory capacity and cannot be considered to be a workman. The letter of appointment of the appellant shows that he was appointed on probation of six months. This probationary period was further extended on 14-I-1977 till 31st March, 1977 but before the expire of the said period his services were terminated on 16th February, 1977 i.e. After about seven months of the issuance of his appointment order. The termination of services was therefore, in his capacity as pro--bationer and in accordance with the letter of his appointment.
4. I, accordingly, agree with the view of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was not a workman and his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not maintainable. I, accordingly, dismiss his appeal.